The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Crowley

Good info here. I was always impressed with what FORD did with the SRA. As a past owner of a 2004 cobra, I enjoyed the IRS that it had and the differences as a daily driver that the IRS gave me. It sounds like the CB IRS would be the best of both worlds.

Crowley

Here is an amateur video explaining Control Blade IRS... The kid sounds gay but he did a good job dumbin' it down for me..

[thePill]

What he talks about is the isolated coilover meaning the spring and shock operate on the same axis. Traditional IRS coils operate this way too, but they are usually located outward near the wheel. The large trailing arms firmly plant the vehicle weight on top of the coilover assembly during hard acceleration. Kind of like a Corvette's transverse leaf spring would do but this uses two forward arms and the Vette uses a lateral leaf spring.

This suspension isn't new and at first the cost were pretty high, but a well known axle company named Dana (rearends and such) actually produces the Control Blade almost entirely which reduced the cost to the manufacturer significantly.

Edit: This suspension was kind of high jacked from Jaguar and other foreign car makers. Ford picked it up from Jag in the late 1990's... I think 1996... The Cobra IRS was a type of Control Blade, but the trailing arms were not redesigned when it was fitted to the Cobra. I know it can be retro fitted but Ford should have spent alittle cash to redesign the trailing arms.. It would have been good to go.. (EDIT: COBRA IRS WAS NOT CONTROL BLADE AS THE SUBFRAME CONNECTORS ARE OFTEN MISTAKEN FOR TRAILING ARMS via syr74)

[thePill]

Cobra IRS looked like this, note the crooked trailing arms and how this is not the compact coilover system... (EDIT: the subframe section's below are NOT trailing arms, this is not Control Blade IRS via syr74)



Now here is a CB IRS from 2000 Falcon.. This is a compact coilover and the trailing arms are more aggressive in purpose ie they apply aft downforce directly onto the coilovers via the bottom link. This means pressure created from hard acceleration bypasses the coilover and applies direct pressure on the lower link connected to the wheel assembly.. Like a solid rear axle would do.. And, any hard cornering that would put extreme forces on the fragile half shafts are absorbed by the large trailing arms...

[Mr. Wyndham]

I love compact things...something about packing more stuff in smaller spaces....I think it's why I like my smart-phone so much.

It's certainly amazing how far cars have developed from the old bolt-a-rod-on-the-wagon....

But back on...not-really-the-topic....where are the shocks/coils on that control-blade picture, beneath the body-mounting plates?

[truth411]

Originally Posted by BigDan

Here's is the lap's times since you failed to search before you replied.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2011-for...nds-video.html

Dude you are being fooled by Good advertising, Ford used one of their own drivers, any manufacture that use their own drivers are going to have great results. Car and Driver lightning lap use the same driver (thus equal driving skill) for all cars and the 2011 GT-500 was almost 6 seconds slower than the Grand sport. Think about it if GM "Flys out" its own driver to let loose the GS Vette on the track you wold have faster lap times than a mag rag tester that went 2:58 around the track on that day. Ultimatley its just Great P.R. Number 3 is correct, if you think the 2011 GT-500 are going to keep pace with GS vettes on your local track days (lap after lap) your going to be disapointed. It looks like they still have basicaly the same brake set up since the 2007s (I have driven those), there good but they fade faster than the vettes do.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by truth411

Dude you are being fooled by Good advertising, Ford used one of their own drivers, any manufacture that use their own drivers are going to have great results. Car and Driver lightning lap use the same driver (thus equal driving skill) for all cars and the 2011 GT-500 was almost 6 seconds slower than the Grand sport. Think about it if GM "Flys out" its own driver to let loose the GS Vette on the track you wold have faster lap times than a mag rag tester that went 2:58 around the track on that day. Ultimatley its just Great P.R. Number 3 is correct, if you think the 2011 GT-500 are going to keep pace with GS vettes on your local track days (lap after lap) your going to be disapointed. It looks like they still have basicaly the same brake set up since the 2007s (I have driven those), there good but they fade faster than the vettes do.

You don't think GM uses their own professional drivers? Nurburgring? Actually, I don't think that there is any manufacturers that allow non-certified professional drivers to hot lap their vehicles. Motor Trend uses a library of pro drivers to test the cars.. Car and Driver results are what you and I could do.. which is more realistic, but alittle more seat time, I can out run C&D.. Remember, car mags have deadlines...

Edit: Anything with a supercharger is going to fall behind a naturally aspirated engine...

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by thePill

You don't think GM uses their own professional drivers? Nurburgring? Actually, I don't think that there is any manufacturers that allow non-certified professional drivers to hot lap their vehicles.

Correct.

EDIT: And...quite a generalized statement...

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by thePill

Here is an amateur video explaining Control Blade IRS... The kid sounds gay but he did a good job dumbin' it down for me..

[speedster]

Don't want to get off track, but figured the Mustang crowd would like this one:

Pretty impressive balance between power and streetability.

[GT500NN]

Originally Posted by speedster

Don't want to get off track, but figured the Mustang crowd would like this one:

Pretty impressive balance between power and streetability.

Tom Nelson builds some bad stuff!

[syr74]

Originally Posted by thePill

Edit: This suspension was kind of high jacked from Jaguar and other foreign car makers. Ford picked it up from Jag in the late 1990's... I think 1996...

Eh, sorta'. The Control Blade is a very modern take on the old Jaguar E Type suspension which dates back what seems like a century or two. To be fair to the Control Blade, there are some pretty significant differences which constitute major improvements, like the fact that the Jaguar design effectively used the axle as the upper control arm whereas the Control Blade does not.

Originally Posted by thePill

The Cobra IRS was a type of Control Blade, but the trailing arms were not redesigned when it was fitted to the Cobra. I know it can be retro fitted but Ford should have spent alittle cash to redesign the trailing arms.. It would have been good to go..

This seems to be a growing misconception, but the Cobra IRS was not a Control Blade design. There are no trailing arms (blades) on the Cobra unit at all. The Cobra uses upper and lower A-arms attached to a cradle that bolts into the car. I think what throws folks off here is that the front attachment points for the cradle look like trailing arms, but they don't actually function like that and aren't a part of the suspension and are, instead, a part of the framework used to attach the suspension to the car.

[CC Performance]

Blech ! In the end it's still a Ford and I just dont like them... unless we're talking about a 69 or 70 Mach 1 or something I dont see the big deal.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by speedster

Don't want to get off track, but figured the Mustang crowd would like this one:

Pretty impressive balance between power and streetability.

Wow, thanks for sharing that!!! That is a slick setup, over 8000rpms, 1000+ hp and tq, no weld custom built everything and a very complicated fuel delivery system... I loved the clutch too, that looked very unique..

Thanks again for posting that, gotta post that on my friends facebook...

[thePill]

Originally Posted by syr74

Eh, sorta'. The Control Blade is a very modern take on the old Jaguar E Type suspension which dates back what seems like a century or two. To be fair to the Control Blade, there are some pretty significant differences which constitute major improvements, like the fact that the Jaguar design effectively used the axle as the upper control arm whereas the Control Blade does not.

Ah, I knew it came from Jaguar I just never dug any deeper past the mid-90's. Now you got me interested in the old Jag set up and the differences.

This seems to be a growing misconception, but the Cobra IRS was not a Control Blade design. There are no trailing arms (blades) on the Cobra unit at all. The Cobra uses upper and lower A-arms attached to a cradle that bolts into the car. I think what throws folks off here is that the front attachment points for the cradle look like trailing arms, but they don't actually function like that and aren't a part of the suspension and are, instead, a part of the framework used to attach the suspension to the car.

Really? I was always told it that it was, but looking at the picture, I could never see why it was called control blade if the trailing arms were not... um trailing arms. That was the first thing that I looked at was the "front attachment points for the cradle look like trailing arms".. Thanks for clearing that up, I need to fix my post... So to be straight, the Cobra IRS is a traditional IRS w/cradle?